AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)
The challenge in all the four writ petitions is as under:-
CWP-19706-2022 (O&M)
For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2-CRRID to immediately release the pending salaries of the petitioners for the period they worked with the respondent-CRRID payable from July, 2021 till date, as the respondents are withholding the release of salaries of the petitioners.
CWP-30198-2022 (O&M)
For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order No.CRRID/Dir (Act.)/2022/298 dated 01.12.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-CRRID, whereby the services of the petitioner have been treated to continue as Assistant Professor on contractual basis on existing terms till December 31, 2022 in Haryana Government’s Research Studies Programme; and issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 to revert back the petitioner to his parental post held by him i.e. as Assistant Professor, Reserve Bank of India Chair, established by respondent No.2 at CRRID Officer (respondent No.3) with effect from the date the studies sponsored by the Haryana Government’s Research Studies Programme came to an end; and directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to treat the services of the petitioner on regular basis as Assistant Professor under UGC pay scale in the RBI Chair.
CWP-26644-2023 (O&M)
For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing recovery notice dated 12.02.2022, vide which the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.15,96,426/- and letter dated 26.05.2022 vide which in continuation of earlier letter, was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.16,29,902/- within a period of three months of the issue of reversion-cum-recovery notice, which have been issued to the petitioner after the petitioner had retired on 31.10.2021 from service, after serving respondent No.2-CRRID for a period of 36 years.
CWP-22321-2026 (O&M)
For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2-CRRID to release the amount of leave encashment of the petitioners, which is pending with respondent No.2-CRRID, since the date of their retirement along with interest @ 12% per annum.
Since the relief sought by the petitioners, in all the above referred to four writ petitions, is against the respondent-CRRID, therefore, these writ petitions are decided vide this common judgment.
Learned counsel for the respondents contends that in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) Vs. Neetu Gaur and others, 2025(5) SLR 659, these writ petitions are not maintainable against the respondent-CRRID.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to rebut the same.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole files of the writ petitions with their able assistance.
A perusal of all the files of the writ petitions shows that the grievance of the petitioners is against the respondent-CRRID.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR)’s case (supra) has held as under:-
“XXX XXX XXX XXX
15.The learned Single Judge and the learned judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have considered the above provision to be amounting to a 'deep and pervasive' control by the State! However, it is to be noted that the second part of Rule 22(d) of CRRID Rules empowers the Governing Body to reject the names of nominees proposed by ICSSR or State Governments without giving any reason. It is like a proviso to the general part embodied under Rule 22(d) of CRRID Rules. It reads as follows:
The Governing Body shall, however, have the right to reject/or refer back to the deputing authorities the names of the proposed nominees(s) should it feel that the said nominee is not acceptable to the Governing Body. The Governing Body shall not be obliged to give the reason for rejecting or referring back any such name.
This shows that CRRID is an autonomous body without much control of ICSSR. The Governing Body of CRRID has the authority to reject and refer back the names of proposed nominees and while doing so, CRRID is not even required to give any reasons.
16.The presence of one or even two members of ICSSR in a Governing Body of twelve does not amount to 'deep and pervasive' control of the State. Even assuming an additional two nominees from the Government of Punjab in the Governing Body will at best make four such members in a Governing Body of twelve. We have been informed that as of today there are only three nominees together from ICSSR and State of Punjab in all. This is not 'deep and pervasive' control.
17.We have no doubt in our mind that ICSSR is indeed an "authority", within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It also controls CRRID to an extent inasmuch as CRRID depends on the funds released by ICSSR as grants. But this itself cannot be called a 'deep and pervasive' control. A 'deep and pervasive' control would require much more than just financing an institution or a body. Even guiding, controlling or regulating affairs of an institution will not be called a 'deep and pervasive' control. The 'deep and pervasive' control requires administrative, financial and functional control of such a body to a much higher degree including interference into its day-to-day working, and mere regulatory control cannot mean 'deep and pervasive' control. [See: S.S Rana v. Registrar Coop. Societies and Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 634; Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT (1991) 4 SCC 578; Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy (2013) 8 SCC 345].
18.Moreover, the crucial question here is not whether the control exercised by ICSSR on CRRID is 'deep and pervasive' but whether ICSSR was justified in withholding its grant. CRRID has not answered this question with any degree of satisfaction. The High Court has also failed to address this crucial issue. Simply because ICSSR has some control over CRRID, it cannot be a reason for directing ICSSR to release the grants when it has been withheld for just and valid reasons. Once ICSSR gives its grant to CRRID it does not have much interference in the management of these funds. Nor is the administration of CRRID controlled by ICSSR. CRRID, in any case, is not an authority within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Merely because CRRID is under the control of an authority (as defined under Article 12) will not make CRRID an authority. In fact, this is neither the case of the respondents-employees nor does CRRID in any manner assert itself as an Authority. XXX XXX XXX XXX”
In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the above referred to judgment, respondent-CRRID does not fall within the meaning of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, these writ petitioners are not maintainable. Consequently, all the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.